Showing posts with label Matthew 16. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matthew 16. Show all posts
Living a Holy Life
Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox broadly agree on salvation. In the Bible, saving faith is evidenced by the fruit of good works (James 2:14-26; Matthew 3:10; 7:19; Matthew 21:43; Colossians 1:10; Ephesians 2:10). We can’t actually separate faith and works. Jesus said in Matthew 16:27 that God, “will reward each person according to what they have done.” We can’t take the free gift of salvation and do nothing with it. Salvation “by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone” is a convoluted way to avoid saying that Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants actually agree, that an evidence of salvation is in doing good works.
Losing & Gaining Our Souls
In Matthew 16:26 Jesus asks, “what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?” In plain English, what are our lives worth? The Greek word translated as soul or life is the same word, meaning breath. It is used metaphorically for our life, everything that makes us ourselves. It’s a great paradox. Selfishness is a losing life. Giving of ourselves for Christ, we find true life. What good is it if we selfishly gain the whole world, when in so doing we lose ourselves? God values our worth by the death of His Son. True life is found not in narcissistic selfishness but in sharing with God and our neighbors.
Lose Life to Save It
In Matthew 16:25 Jesus made the strange-sounding statement that “whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” It is counter-intuitive to our natural instincts. We do a lot to preserve our lives. How can Jesus ask us to give up our lives for his sake? Each of us actually has two lives and this riddle speaks of both. Jesus asks us to willingly lose this temporal life. In so doing we gain eternal life. He did not ask us to commit suicide, but give up our self-centered ways, take up our crosses of self-sacrifice and follow him.
Confession without the Cross
In Matthew 16:24 Jesus said, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” Peter had confessed Christ. His acknowledgment made him a rock of the Rock, and he received the keys to the kingdom of heaven. But his public confession was not enough. Like us, he was to carry his cross. Altar calls are a public confession of Christ, popularized by Charles Finney in the 19th century. They are not always successful for this same reason. After confession of Jesus Christ is living a Christian life which includes, repentance of sin, baptism and carrying our cross and following Him.
From Rock to Stumbling Stone
In Matthew 16:23 Jesus told Peter, “you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Peter went from rock of the Rock to rock of stumbling very quickly indeed. He also did worse, denying Jesus. We all experience ups and downs in our faith journey. There are times when we look at events around us and cry out, “Lord; this shall not happen!” Being crucified, at least figuratively, is something that Christians will experience. Are we too tempted to lose faith or cry out to heaven in objection? Let’s not stumble but remember that carrying our own cross of crucifixion is part of the journey.
Opposing or Following Jesus
When Peter rebuked Jesus’ regarding his prophecy of his crucifixion, Jesus rebuked him saying, “Get behind Me, Satan!” Satan means “adversary.” Peter was opposed to Jesus’ plans. The word for “behind” is translated in the next verse as “follow” me. Jesus wanted Peter to quit being an adversary and get behind him and follow him. When we try to take the lead from Jesus, we are adversaries. When we create church rules in opposition to Jesus, we are adversaries. When we try to be more righteous than Jesus we are in opposition to him. In this story Jesus is also saying to us, “Back me up, you who are in opposition.”
Get Behind me Satan
We naturally want to protect others from possible suffering. Like Peter said to Jesus, do we also say, “No way”? Jesus’ reaction was blunt, “Get behind me Satan!” Have we tried to discourage children from what we imagined to be a poor career choice, when maybe it was their life’s calling, their purpose for being. It is an evil and diabolical thing to make a young person unhappy for life, merely for the sake of family expectations. We don’t want others to suffer, and so we tend to want to baby them. Yet, such good intentions may actually do more harm than good. Like Peter, we may be benefiting the devil.
The Cross Transcends Human Traditions
In Matthew 16:21 we read that, “Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer.” Jewish Messiahs were traditionally conquering military heroes who saved Israel from enemies. Jesus went totally against that, prophesying his crucifixion. To Peter it seemed to be admitting defeat. Peter’s immediate response was to reprimand Jesus. A Messiah was supposed to conquer, to say take up your sword and follow me, not your cross. The Church of Jesus Christ needs ongoing reformation. We constantly need to pray for and follow His direction not lean on our human traditions. In Jesus, loss is gain, defeat is victory. The cross transcends tradition.
Whatever You Forbid/Permit
In Matthew 16:19 we read, “Whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” As Peter opened the kingdom of heaven by his declaration of faith, so do the descendants of the faith of Peter “declare the terms under which God forgives sin and allows entrance to the kingdom.”1 This is shared by all the Apostles in Matthew 18:18. Their decisions “will have been tied up” and “will have been untied.”2 This is not divine endorsement of mere human decisions but divine guidance, enabling each to be “the faithful steward of God’s prior decisions.”3
1Michael J. Wilkins. The NIV Application Commentary. Zondervan. 2004. 578.
2R. T. France. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. The Gospel of Matthew. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2007. 626.
3Ibid. 627.
Tertullian’s View of the Keys
In Matthew 16:19 Jesus said, “I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Tertullian taught that the whole Christian faith is built upon Peter being the first to confess Christ. What about the keys? Tertullian believed that, ‘(Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom...’ He reasoned that Peter’s confession gave him and any others who showed this same faith, the key to the kingdom, not human politics and a succession of popes in an exclusive church. Indeed, ‘from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted "a Church"’.
reference: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, VOLUME 4, Chapter XXI
Pope Impossible
The Apostles of Jesus Christ were scattered far and wide. How reliable was communication between the Christians of India, Ethiopia, Turkey and Spain? Is it unrealistic to claim Peter’s authority over all these lands in a time when it would have been a matter of practical impossibility? Early church fathers did not interpret Matthew 16:19 as Rome later came to. Could it simply be that wherever the right faith is to be found, there are the keys to the kingdom? How can any one person have a monopoly on that faith? Is that why Paul wrote that no other foundation than Jesus Christ can be laid (1 Corinthians 3:11)?
The Gates of Hades
In Matthew 16:18 Jesus spoke of the church that “the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” In Greek mythology, Hades is pictured as a place with strong gates that do not permit escape. In this context, Jesus most likely used the term as a metaphor for the grave. That which overthrows all other societies will not overthrow the church. Many have tried. Roman Emperors, Zoroastrians, Jews, Persians, Middle Eastern Muslims, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Bhutanese Buddhists, Russian Communists, Mexican governments, Madagascans, Fascists, Nazis, and North Korean despots all failed to destroy the church. The grave has no power over those who know that they will rise from the dead.
Chrysostom’s View of Peter
Chrysostom did not believe Matthew 16:18 supported Papal succession. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;" that is, on the faith of his confession… He that has built His church upon Peter's confession...’ (1) Peter’s authority over all the world did not continue beyond his grave other than through those who confessed the same faith. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ....I have preached Christ, I have delivered unto you the foundation. Take heed how you build thereon, lest haply it be in vainglory, lest haply so as to draw away the disciples unto men." (2)
References: (1) St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew
(2) Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians
Augustine’s View of Peter
Augustine of Hippo wrote, ‘Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. "Therefore," he saith, "Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock" which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;" that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, "will I build My Church." I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.’
Upon THIS Rock
Does the word “this” make Jesus’ statement “on this rock I will build My church” point away from Peter? It is a feminine Greek pronoun. If Rome’s argument about translating from Aramaic were correct, shouldn’t the meaning be made clearer not ambiguous? Why wouldn’t Jesus say, “upon you I will build my church”? Does the Greek grammar of the word “this” contradict Catholic dogma by directing our attention away from Peter as its intended meaning? What did it point to? Many early church Fathers said that “this rock” was Peter’s confession of faith, while others said it was Christ Himself. Is the grammar then clear that Peter was not the rock?
You are Peter
In Matthew 16:18 we read, “I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.” Peter is “Petros” and rock is a feminine “Petra” in Greek. Rome says that the rock in Matthew 16:18 was the same word as Peter in Aramaic. Where is the evidence that this conversation was in Aramaic? People from Galilee commonly spoke Greek as well. Does internal linguistic evidence show Matthew was written in Greek and that Jesus most likely spoke in Greek? Are linguistic markers of a translation from an Aramaic conversation absent? Many early church Fathers did not agree with Rome’s interpretation of this.
Peter was Rocky not Pope
We are called Christians because we believe in Christ. We could also be called Rocks of the Rock of our salvation, Jesus. That’s how many early Church fathers saw Peter’s faith in Jesus who is the cornerstone in the Church’s foundation of prophets and apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Jesus nicknamed Cephas as Rock (Peter) just as followers of Christ are named Christian. There is nothing in Matthew 16:18 declaring Peter as first in succession of men carrying sole authority over the entire Church. Nothing in the Bible or in early church writings universally supports the dogma of a Roman papacy as the sole Christian authority throughout the rest of Church history.
Reference: Saint Augustine, Retractions (20.1) and Sermons (vol 6, sermon 229)
Origen’s View of the Rock
Origen commented on Matthew 16:16 writing, ‘if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church… all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ...’
reference: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS, VOLUME 9, BOOK XII, 10
Who do We Say He Is
In Matthew 16:15 Jesus asked his disciples, “But who do you say I am?” The answer to that question defines us. Peter answered it and he was named after the Rock of our Salvation. Are we like Peter, rock of the Rock? Some things about God are revealed to us by God alone. What a shame that this passage is overshadowed by those who wish to promote their own flesh and blood church leadership. Yet, when we understand who Jesus is, when that is revealed to us from our Father in heaven, then we too are Rock of the Rock and we receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
Caesarea Philippi
In Matthew 16:13 we read, “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’” Caesarea Philippi was a city built on a rock to honor Caesar Augustus who called himself the son of a god. The imagery and the contrast with brutal human leadership were evident. In contrast to Caesar, the leaders of the Church of God were not to elevate themselves above their fellows, but become servants of all. The authority of deciding church matters was given to Peter but not to him alone. Jesus later explained that the other Apostles also carried decision-making authority (Matthew 18:18). The rock we build Christian ministry on is Jesus Christ not people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)